Delhi High Court: In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) filed by cricketer Yuvraj Singh seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes with respondents, C. Hari Shankar, J., referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator and observed that invocation of arbitration would not stand effaced just because a party had sought refund.
Yuvraj Singh filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act for reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.
The disputes arose from an Agreement to Sell dated 05-02-2021 (‘ATS’) that had been executed between the parties.
Yuvraj Singh contended that the respondents owed certain amounts due to which a notice dated 27-04-2024 was addressed to them, however, no reply was received. After having waited for about a month, the respondent was served with a notice dated 26-05-2024 invoking arbitration.
The parties, having not been able to arrive at any consensus regarding arbitration, the present petition was moved, further alleging that he had a claim of Rs 1.38 Crores against the respondents.
It was contended by respondent 2 that though he was a party to the ATS, the subject dispute was between Yuvraj Singh and respondent 1, and that respondent 2 had been made a party unnecessarily.
The Court referred to SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 wherein it had been held that under Section 11(6) of the Act, Court should only decide whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties and whether the Section 11(6) petition had been filed within three years of the Section 21 notice.
The Court said there existed an arbitration agreement between the parties in the present case, and that whether respondent 2 was to be deleted from the array of parties was to be decided by the arbitral Tribunal.
Respondent 1 had pointed out after issuance of the Section 21 notice, Yuvraj Singh had written to the respondents seeking refund of certain amounts, therefore, such request of refund would evince his intention to not proceed with arbitration. However, the Court said that such a contention by respondent 1 was unacceptable and said, “invoking arbitration does not stand effaced merely because the petitioners sought refund from the respondents”. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits and said the same would be open to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal.
The Court said that the necessary ingredients of Section 11(6) clearly existed in the instant case, and accordingly, referred the disputes between the parties to arbitration, and appointed a sole arbitrator.
The Court concluded that all questions of fact and law are left open to be adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations.
[Yuvraj Singh Bundhel v. Brillient Etoile Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5319, decided on 05-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for petitioners: Rizwan, Sachi Chopra, Azadar Husain, Nistha Sinha, V. Anand, Yashi Bajpai, Advocates
Advocates for respondents: Neeraj Singh, Gulati, Vijay Nair, Manoranjan Sharma, Manmeet Singh Nagpal, Advocates
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
